Saturday, September 06, 2008

Sometimes You Have to Write . . .


Friday morning I was eating my pop tarts and reading the editorial page of my local paper . . . and nearly lost my appetite. I read an editorial that was so slanted and so inconsistent that I had to go into my office and write a response. 

I know that some of you may not care for politics (I don't either, actually), but there are some very important issues at stake in this election. This election will decide the direction of our country in the next several years, and I can't sit back and remain silent when the values I cherish are threatened. 

All that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing . . . right? 

Anyway, here's the letter I wrote: 

Letters to the Editor

Cleveland Plain Dealer/St. Pete Times

Dear Editor:

Connie Schultz’s column, “It’s Palin who played the family card” contained so many slanted statements that I find myself compelled to write. Schultz bemoans the fact that Bristol Palin is pregnant at seventeen “but [her] mother runs for vice president anyway and then sees fit to release a statement about [her] pregnancy to squelch rumors about her own.”

Good grief. Was Schultz present in the room when Sarah Palin decided to release a simple and dignified statement about her daughter’s pregnancy? Could the statement have been made because Palin knew the press would eventually get the news and run roughshod over this young mother with assumptions like Schultz’s? And why does Schultz expect Sarah Palin to remain out of the public eye because her daughter is pregnant? Palin’s not ashamed of her daughter; she’s supporting her. I daresay Schultz only wants Palin to stay home and keep quiet because her views differ from Schultz’s.

Schultz goes on to say that Palin believes “abortion is not an option” and “the question for Palin is just how much prison time a woman should serve if she chooses to abort her rapist’s baby.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  In March 1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, the United States Supreme Court ruled that all blacks—slaves as well as free--were not and could never be citizens of the United States. As to the Constitution, which declares that all men are created equal, Justice Taney wrote that “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration . . . .”

When Lincoln set the slaves free and Americans realized the Supreme Court had it wrong—just as they have refused to recognize that unborn human life is unborn human life--were former slaveholders placed in prison? No.  Talk of prison for women who have had legal abortions is fear-mongering at its worst.

Women who defend the right to life for those who have no voice can do more than remain in the kitchen and bake cookies. They can run state governments. They can stand up to the old boys’ network. And they can represent millions of American women like me. 

Sincerely,

Angela Hunt

15 comments:

Mocha with Linda said...

Go get 'em! I too get weary of how the media twists things around.

Hunt/Palin for Pres/VP in '08!!

Kay Day said...

We have a personhood amendment before us here in CO - to declare that life begins at conception.
There is, of course, a lot of talk about how women would go to prison for aborting ectopic pregnancies, etc. Fear mongering -- just like you said.

Good letter, Angie. I don't see what her pregnant daughter has to do with anything. I know some very godly parents who have children that have made some bad mistakes. It isn't always a reflection on the parent's family values.

Although, I do question how much priority her family will have if she gets elected. Something always has to give, you know?

But that is her family's issue, they can take that up with her. As a voter, I think she has a lot to offer.

Megan DiMaria said...

Great job -- you go, Angie! Thanks for giving voice to what I'm sure many thought.

As Kay mentioned, we have a Colorado for Equal Rights Personhood Amendment. If it passes we will be the first state to acknowledge rights for all -- born and unborn.

If you want your pulse to race in anticipation, view their short video: http://vimeo.com/1155490?pg=embed&sec=1155490

A prisoner of hope,
Megan

Nicole said...

Amen, Sister. You go girl. I agree. Sometimes you just have to dispute the lies. You take flak, but, hey, it's better than being silent and letting the lies remain untouched. Well done.
Rush Limbaugh made a good point about Bristol. If her mother refused to run for VP because of her daughter, her daughter would have to live with that for the rest of her life. Bristol looked very proud of her mother throughout the convention.

Kathy said...

Great response, Angie. I too am weary of the continued lies. They behave as though the Palins first learned of their daughter's pregnancy when the rest of us did when in reality the family has probably dealt with this for the last 3-4 months. What should they do--keep her in a closet? I am excited for the world to see how a family deals with these life issues in a life affirming way. Perhaps it will give women in similar situations reason to have a second thought about their options.

Kara S. said...

Go Angie!!! I used to work for a newspaper and reviewed the letters before publication. It always irked me how many letters were based on false information or distorted the facts. And I always cheered when someone wrote a response correcting the bad letter!

Here's a little irony... According to "The Faith of Barack Obama," his father and mother were married when she was 6 months pregnant with Barack. Hmmmm... Anyone in the media care to mention how wonderful he turned out (oh wait, they already do that) considering the "circumstances"?

Mi said...

Sigh...

It's so typical of the right-wing/conservative/Republicans to get up in arms about people criticizing Palin and her daughter.

Funny how I didn't hear any similar outrage about how Chelsea Clinton was treated. McCain allegedly joked that Janet Reno was the one who'd really fathered Chelsea.

For the record, I am of the opinion we shouldn't even drag the candidates' families into the spotlight (unless they've committed a federal crime or such).

I'm a pro-life Democrat, and yes, we actually exist.

Anonymous said...

Brava, Angie! Some of the media comments are appalling. Debate and criticize postions--not candidate's minor children. I've heard some respond to our outrage with, "Well you didn't complain when Obama was being raked over the coals about his associations." Excuse me? That's a bit different than saying the woman shouldn't run for national office because she has 5 children. Did people say Joe Biden shouldn't stay in Congress when he became a single parent because he couldn't do it all? No! Do people attack Obana's children (darling girls!) in print. No. Why do it to Sarah Palin?

Not only should the criticisms be pertinent and have parity. What really concerns me is those in the media who appear to truly believe there is no double standard being used; that they are being fair and only dealing with relevant issues. "Tis frightening, and, I believe, indicative of a real spiritual battle. [end of rant!]

Thanks, Angie, for standing up. If all the good folk would remember that doing nothing is like abandoning our posts while on guard duty.

God bless,
Mary Kay

kalea_kane said...

Good for you! I am glad to read that you voiced your opinion. I agree entirely. I frequent a social network that has just driven me crazy, because there is so much venom out there.

Smilingsal said...

You nailed it! Thank you for standing up for the good.

Nicole said...

Just a sidenote to Mi . . . I believe you are a pro-life "Democrat", but your party is most definitely not. So, depending upon how important being pro-life is to you will have a lot to say about who you ultimately vote for. The Democrats running for President and VP, as you know, support abortion through full term pregnancies.

Mi said...

Nicole,

Yes, I'm a pro-life Democrat. Is it required that I have to support my party in everything? No.

Abortion is always a controversial subject, and it doesn't matter which party wins the election because we'll still be debating and arguing about it, long after November. Do you really believe the Democrats will instantly whoop it up and make abortion even more available/legal/convenient?

Of course not. The evangelical base will be fighting the pro-choice groups on this issue tooth and nail, and I for one will be joining them.

I rather resent your implication that pro-life is not important to me, if I don't vote for the Republican ticket.

Nicole said...

Mi, abortion couldn't get any easier to attain. I didn't suggest your only "choice" was to vote Republican if being pro-life was critically important to you.

Mi said...

Nicole,

There are only two influential political parties: Democrat and Republican, so my 'choice' certainly is either one of them. Please don't even suggest I should abstain from voting.

McCain in 2000 might have been a fine choice, and I seriously considered him as a viable candidate, but unfortunately Bush emerged as the Republican frontrunner instead. Now McCain is 72, and as indelicate as it is, he could easily die at any moment, and I dislike the idea of Sarah Palin replacing him, as she's even younger and more inexperienced than Obama. On the other hand, Obama has a veteran Biden waiting in the wings to help him out.

So, after seeing how Bush has so thoroughly squandered the last 8 years, my conscience will rest easy as I vote for the Democrat ticket and back the Republicans on the pro-life issue, thank you very much. God forbid that we Christians should have our own minds, apart from the stereotypical white Republican party line.

If you wish to continue this debate, I am more than happy to provide my email address, as this is Angela's blog.

Nicole said...

Hmm. You're right about one thing: this is Angela's blog.